Hacker News Reader

Comment by bittermang | Hacker News Reader

There seems to be a lot of sentiment that Wikipedia should stay out of politics. This is not a maintainable stance. In the vein of the oft quoted "First they came..." (which has it's own wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6), sites like Wikipedia cannot ignore a law like SOPA and have to make their position heard. Wikipedia is not sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, politics have come to them pitchforks and torches in hand.

Do it. Paint it black.

View on HN

Couldn't agree more, another fantastic quote: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri

edit: It appears I landed on a gold mine of applicable quotes while looking for the above one, (and corporations are people too, right?)....

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." - Albert Einstein

Dante didn't say that. I tell ya, don't trust those quote sites! There's only one that's mostly reliable. If you check there first, you'll often find what you're looking for under "Misattributed":

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri

In this case, the source of the misquote is known: a 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy.

> The hottest place in Hell was reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, until the Swiss made it a well-run mountain paradise.

--Steven Kaas https://twitter.com/#!/stevenkaas/status/25390344350

As a 501(c)3, the Wikimedia Foundation is legally required to stay out of politics, and has limits on how it can lobby Congress on specific pieces of legislation. This is why, for example, the Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3.

Changing Wikipedia, and tying it to a specific bill like SOPA, would likely tread very closely to that line, or over it. That really WOULD threaten the future of Wikipedia as it would face legal sanctions, or be forced to give up its 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations would no longer be tax-deductible.

This proposal isn't coming from the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, it's coming from the community. For example, the Italian Wikipedia came down recently in protest of something political. That was implemented by the community of volunteers who maintain Wikipedia, rather than the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

But remember, 501(c)(3) status is a US-only thing. Different rules would apply in Italy.

501(c)3 organizations can engage in lobbying as long as it does not constitute a substancial portion of the organization's activity. 501(c)3 organizations have an absolute ban on lobbying for candidates for public office, however.

This would not threaten Wikipedia's tax-exempt status.

The WM produces one project: Wikipedia, the bulk of which is the English-language version. If that is given over entirely to lobbying a specific bill, even temporarily, they would have a very hard time arguing that that is not a "substantial portion" of their activity.

They wouldn't have that hard a time, it's just a line of code after all.

1 day out of 365 is less than .3%

And if you geo-target it to en/US only visitors -- you're a minute fraction of wikimedia's activity.

"Substantial portion" from the IRS perspective would involve money or staff time. They have 2 floors of staff. None of whom need be involved in this other than possibly to approve the release of some community-requested code changes.

That's not quite accurate. 501(c)(3) nonprofits CAN engage in political activity. They are just limited in the amount they can do. A group like the Sierra Club whose primary activity is lobbying and politics and who incidentally does other things wouldn't fit under 501(c)(3).

IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding that the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations and political action had more to do with endorsing for or against candidates than taking overt positions on specific issues.

For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: "Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention." [1]

Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or against SOPA, and thus even implying that WM wanted you to vote one way or another for those candidates, they'd have crossed the line.

Simply saying, "We don't like SOPA. Here's why it's the worst bill since the Let's All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887..." OTOH, seems to be kosher, per my reading on the subject.

[1] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf

(EDIT: clarification.)

I'm pretty sure you're correct. I've worked with a number of 501(c)(3), and most of them have worked on political issues and bills. They cannot endorse a candidate though.

As is seen on the Jimbo Wales user talk page, the WikiMedia Foundation already hires paid political lobbyists...

EFF is a 501 (c) (3). If EFF can advocate, so can Wikipedia.

Replying to myself to point out that Jimbo addressed this concern directly here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#An_updat...

Hear, hear. If there was any issue on which Wikipedia should break it's neutrality, it would be this one. With SOPA, they might be blocked anyway, so it would be a good introduction to the new Internet.

I agree. Neutrality is laudable in principle, however is not something that should be embraced at the exclusion of common sense and self preservation.

Based on everything I've heard, this is a perfectly appropriate time to take bold action.

Also, I can't help but think that SOPA would be dead in ~1 hour if Google pulled the plug on Youtube.

Of course not. Viacom et al. would point to this as a victory and Congress would go on without them.

But there is a considerable number of people with YouTube addictions who would be, all things considered, just short of violent revolution. Corporations are only valuable because they provide money for advertising aimed at the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com